ABSTRACT
But modern criticism, which in nine out of ten of its manifestations claims descent from Richards, is preoccupied with the form, the means, of poetry. The paradox is puzzling only when we have in mind a too-simple dichotomy between form and meaning, means and end, expression and content.2 Richards' 'technique and value' is the most dangerous wording of this false distinction; it leads into the inevitable 'mere technique' and the like. Of course, mechanical formal description deserves all the scorn it gets, especially when it imputes value exclusively to material virtuosity. But poetic form cannot be refined away, treated as an attractive way of communicating something which is distinct from form and transcends it. The foundation of excellent practical criticism is the refusal to believe that the only meaning that there is is meaning as distinct from form and that value unquestionably resides in an immaterial heaven to which form is dross. We must believe that formal description not only leads to, but is, a statement of meaning-that we are making significant, valuable statements when we describe the form of poetry. If we do not, then our descriptions are bound to be merely technical: we make a reality of that fiction the 'externals' of poetry.
